32 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 885
D. Md.2016Background
- Lauren Searls, a deaf nurse who uses ASL interpreters, completed clinical rotations at Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and received positive evaluations; JHH offered her a Nurse Clinician I position contingent on health clearance.
- Searls requested a full-time ASL interpreter as a reasonable accommodation during pre-employment screening; JHH’s ADA/HR staff evaluated the request.
- JHH’s consultants estimated interpreter costs (initially two interpreters, later one) and Halsted 8 and departmental managers concluded the department could not absorb the expense; contemporaneous emails indicate cost was the dispositive reason.
- JHH rescinded the job offer citing the accommodation’s effect on departmental resources and operations; it did not request alternatives from Searls or perform an individualized safety assessment.
- Searls subsequently obtained a nursing position at Strong Memorial Hospital, where a full-time ASL interpreter is provided and her performance and safety record are positive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an ASL interpreter was a reasonable accommodation | An interpreter is a recognized reasonable accommodation that would allow Searls to perform essential functions (communication, respond to alarms) without reallocating those functions | Interpreter would effectively reallocate essential job functions and require others to perform core duties | Court: Interpreter was a reasonable accommodation; it would not reallocate essential functions because Searls would retain nursing judgment and substantial responsibility |
| Whether providing an interpreter would impose undue hardship | JHH could absorb cost; hospital-wide resources and examples (Strong) show accommodation feasible | Cost to unit/department would be significant; unit would lack funds and would need layoffs | Court: JHH failed to meet undue-hardship burden; budgeting $0 for accommodations and focusing only on unit budget insufficient given JHH’s broader resources |
| Whether Searls posed a direct threat to patient safety | No individualized medical or evidence-based safety assessment was done; other employers successfully accommodate deaf nurses | Some alarms are auditory only and relying on non-nurse interpreters risks safety | Court: JHH failed to prove direct threat; defense is pretextual and lacked individualized assessment |
| Admissibility of defendant’s experts on alarm-response risk | Experts lack relevant expertise in deaf healthcare and thus their testimony is unreliable and irrelevant | Experts would opine on alarm-monitoring risk with/without interpreter | Court: Strike defense experts; lack of relevant expertise and experts’ opinions are not relevant because JHH’s safety defense is pretextual |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cty., 789 F.3d 407 (4th Cir.) (employer must show case-specific undue hardship)
- Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.) (interpreters are a common form of reasonable accommodation though not always required)
- Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (elements of prima facie failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.) (ADA does not require reallocating essential job functions or hiring another person to perform them)
- Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.) (definition of essential job functions)
- Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266 (4th Cir.) (employee fails essential function only when impairment detrimentally affects employment purpose)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir.) (shifting employer explanations probative of pretext)